← All Phrases

“unexplained investment”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 69Section 695,821 judgments

The decision most relied on for unexplained investment is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on unexplained investment

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

Chuharmal v. CIT
172 ITR 250 · 1988 · Supreme Court
340
citing judgments

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.
361 ITR 220 · 2014 · High Court
328
citing judgments

When making an addition under section 68, the creditworthiness or financial strength of an investor contributing share capital or share application money can be proved by producing their bank statements showing sufficient balance for the investment. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against this decision.

CIT v. Dwarkadhish Investment (P) Ltd.
330 ITR 298 · 2011 · High Court
218
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be asked to explain the source of the source for cash credits, particularly share capital or share application money, once they have discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the immediate investor.

CIT v. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P.) Ltd.
56 Taxmann.com 286 · 2015 · High Court
196
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has an independent statutory obligation to conduct proper inquiries and verify facts, especially when the Assessing Officer has failed to do so. The CIT(A) must ensure effective inquiry is carried out before deleting additions or accepting additional evidence.

ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah
218 ITR 239 · 1996 · Supreme Court
149
citing judgments

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer must tax any taxable income in the hands of the correct assessee to whom it truly belongs, having no option to assess it in any other person's hands.

CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd.
192 ITR 287 · 1991 · High Court
146
citing judgments

Once the identity of the shareholders is established, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee company under Section 68 for share capital or share application money, as it cannot be treated as undisclosed income.

Judgments citing unexplained investment

DCIT-CC3(2), Mumbai vs. Sudama Textiles Tradings P Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit-Cc-3(2), Sudama Textile Trading P. Ltd., Room No. 1913, Air India Room No. 4, Shivram Patel Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Chowk, Hanuman Nagar, Kurar Mumbai-400021. Village, Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaocs 4200 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Garg, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Garg, CIT-DR
Section 69C

cannot be sustained in principle considering t cannot be sustained in principle considering that the protective addition hat the protective addition of unexplained investment itself has in principle been deleted and also of unexplained investment itself has in principle been deleted and also of unexplained investment itself has in principle

Sunita Chaudhry, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(3) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimalchand PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

exempt u/s 10(38), however, the Ld. A.O. had disallowed the exemption available u/s 10(38) by considering the said income to be Unexplained Investment/ Income from other sources merely on the basis of assumptions and presumptions without considering the relevant facts available on records and arbitrarily relying ... profit on sale of shares. Accordingly, sum of Rs. 84,45,050 being long term capital gains claimed by the assessee was treated as unexplained investment made by the assessee in cash to obtain the equivalent amount as bogus profit on sale of shares and was added to the total

Bose Saravanan, Pudukkottai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, Pudukkottai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 598/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26-12-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is addition of Rs.10.04 Lacs being unexplained investment in purchase of car. 2. The Ld. AR assailed the impugned additions and placed on record copy of cash book maintained by the assessee ... gift from father, professional fee and collection from debtors. However, no proof was submitted. Therefore, the amount of Rs.10.04 Lacs was added as unexplained investment u/s 69. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted cash book for the year and a letter in support of gift of Rs.2.50

ITO (International Taxation) 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 792/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Us Is Delayed By 14 Days. In The Present Appeal, The Impugned Order Dated 11-02-2022 Was Received By The Revenue On The Same Date. Thus, As Per The Provisions Of Section 253(3) Of The Act, The Revenue Was Required The Filed The Appeal Within 60 Days From The Received The Order. However, The Revenue Filed Appeal, For The Year Under 2 Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(3)

income, which falls in the domain of IT Act, 1961. The treaty does not cover the taxation of income of the nature such as unexplained investment." 3 Shri Rajeev Suresh Gehi 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case ... have been confirmed by the Hon'ble Tribunal by order dated 23.11.2021. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that unexplained investment could be taxed in India under sec 69, only if it can be proved that such investments were made out of income earned in India and that

Shree Ajay V. Kapoor, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1809/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: The Assessing Officer & Hence The Assessing Officer Has Passed An Order To The Best Of His Judgement Under Section 144 Of The I.T. Act Assessing Both The Amounts Cited Above & Also Certain Interest Income. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Assessee Filed Written Submissions Before The Learned Cit(A) During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, But They Have Not Been Properly Considered By The Learned Cit(A). In Nutshell, The Learned Ar

Section 144

relates to A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition of unexplained investment in FDs, unexplained cheque deposit and unexplained interest income aggregating to Rs. 29.49 lakhs in the hands of the assessee. 2. The learned AR submitted that

Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1218/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd., Ito 12(1)(4), 310, Chawda Commercial Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Chincholi Bunder Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Malad (W), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aadcc 3116 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Ujjawal Chavhan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Ujjawal Chavhan, DR
Section 148

confirming the addition of Rs. 8,00,05,000/ facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,00,05,000/- as unexplained as unexplained investment made investment made under section 69 of the Income Tax Act. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. Cluster Properties Pvt. Ltd. 3 3.1 That the learned ... burden is on the revenue to the revenue to establish that the assessee has made unexplained establish that the assessee has made unexplained investment and hence addition made without discharging such investment and hence addition made without discharging such investment and hence addition made without discharging such burden is unsustainable

M/S Anagi Trading Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1211/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Anagi Trading Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd.B/8, Sarthak, 6(1)(2) Aarey Road, Goregaon Mumbai-400020 East, Mumbai-400063 Pan No.Aajca4557A Appellant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 3Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. AO erred in making the addition u/s 69 of alleged Unexplained Investments of Rs.1,80,53,700/- 2) The Ld. AO, before making the addition of alleged unexplained investments of Rs.1,80,35,700/-, ought to have considered the understated ... registered sale deed, bank loan sanction letters, charge created before Registered of Companies and other documents; 3) Without prejudice, the addition of alleged unexplained investments could utmost be made to the extent of money paid during impugned year since substantial amount had been in subsequent year. 2. The brief facts

Asst CIT 27(2), Navi Mumbai vs. Merit Magnum Construction, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6657/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Sh. Mahiita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 292CSection 68Section 69CSection 801BSection 801B(10)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Bashir Ahmed Abdurrahman Matte, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

survey under Section 133A of the Act was carried out, during which the assessee has admitted additional income of Rs.65.73 Lacs on account of unexplained investment in construction of hospital building and Rs.5,03,505/- as unexplained cash, which should have been taxed by the AU under the provisions ... premises of the assessee and during the course of survey, the assessee had admitted additional income of Rs.65.73 lakhs on account of unexplained investment in construction of hospital building. This fact was available before the AO while passing the assessment order. The assessee had offered additional income during the course

ITO-30(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Smt. Smruti Ajay Singh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned assessing officer is

ITA 3734/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133Section 143Section 144Section 69

March, 2019 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and addition of = 251 lakhs made by the learned assessing officer as unexplained investment in property was deleted. 02. The solitary ground of appeal raised by the learned assessing officer is that the first appellate authority ... learned assessing officer did not have any _ other alternative but to make the addition of = 251 lakh/- u/s 69 of the act as unexplained investment in purchase of properties. Accordingly assessment order u/s 144 read with section 143 (3) of the act was passed on 27/12/2016 at the total income

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

offered under the head “income from other source” and not routing it through profit and loss account and therefore should be categorised as unexplained investment u/s.69C to be taxed at special rate of tax u/s.115BBE. The PCIT further stated that the investment made in cash is in violation of Section

Amrshi M. Nishar, Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 3263/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 1Section 132(1)Section 133Section 133ASection 153CSection 69

deleted. Assessment Year: 2008-09 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 60,30,411 by way of unexplained investment in shares u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Your appellant respectfully submits that on facts and in law the addition

G. Basavapoorna, Salem vs. ACIT, Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 915/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 915/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of G. Basavapoorna (Individual), 12, Murugan Nagar, Raman Nagar Po, Income Tax, Circle Iii Mettur Dam, Salem District, Salem. Tamil Nadu 636 403. [Pan:Aeppb0023F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Dated 16.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. Besides Challenging Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Disputed Confirmation Of Unexplained Investments Under Section 69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

Besides challenging reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the assessee has disputed confirmation of unexplained investments under section 69A of the Act. 2 I.T.A. No.915/Chny/20 2. Brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Income

Harvinder Oberai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(1) (5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1840/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhharvinder Oberai Vs. Ito-23(1)(5), 11, Tulsi Mahal, Room No. 114, Matru Opp Teresa School, Mandir, Tardeo , 26Th Road, Bandra, Mumbai -400007. Mumbai-400050 Pan/Gir No. Aasop2065R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neelam C Jadav.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neelam C Jadav.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh.DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

explained the credits in spite of providing various opportunities and made addition of Rs.8,42,13,678/- as unexplained investments U/sec69 of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.8,42,13,678/- and passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 01.12.2016. 3. Aggrieved

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6575/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(1)

shop of Rs 84,98,670/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act ; treated amount of Rs 38,35,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and treatqed cost of shops and flat sold of Rs 67,77,600/- as unexplained expenditure

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6574/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(1)

shop of Rs 84,98,670/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act ; treated amount of Rs 38,35,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and treatqed cost of shops and flat sold of Rs 67,77,600/- as unexplained expenditure

DCIT- CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5704/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5704/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Mangalkalash Trading Dcit Cc– 3(2), Pvt. Ltd. R. No. 1913, 19Th Floor, Air बिधम/ F-702, Nandanvan Chs Ltd. India Building, Nariman Vs. Link Road, Kandivali(W), Point, Mumbai-40 021 Mumbai400 067 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aafcm8158F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By Shri T. Shankar, Ld. Dr : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.07.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

accommodation entry of the said investment of Rs 6,25,00,000/- also cannot be sustained considering that the protective addition of unexplained investment itself has been deleted and also because the corresponding substantive addition made u/s 69C in the hands of M/s First Winner Industries P Ltd., M/s Bhagwat

Sri. M. Nagaraja, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

Revenue filed appeal under Section 260A of the Act before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka wherein the deletion of the addition towards unexplained investment in construction was challenged and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to set aside the issue for reconsideration vide judgment dated

Vishnunarayan R. Modani, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1494/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2009-2010
Section 69

assessee and assessing the same as income under the head ‘income from other sources’. (b) further assessing the value of purchases of shares as unexplained investment and (c) assessing estimating commission expenses in procuring capital gains. 3. The facts relating to the issues are discussed in brief. The income ... income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer also assessed the purchase value of Rs. 2,97,653/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Further the Assessing Officer assessed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as brokerage expenses for procuring the above said capital gains

Vishnunarayan Modani, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1493/MUM/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2008-2009
Section 69

assessee and assessing the same as income under the head ‘income from other sources’. (b) further assessing the value of purchases of shares as unexplained investment and (c) assessing estimating commission expenses in procuring capital gains. 3. The facts relating to the issues are discussed in brief. The income ... income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer also assessed the purchase value of Rs. 2,97,653/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Further the Assessing Officer assessed a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as brokerage expenses for procuring the above said capital gains